I love clowns, don't you? They make us laugh with their slapstick silliness. I think there is a bit of clown in me - I just don't wear the make-up or the funny clothes. Isn't the whole point of a clown to evoke laughter and giggles from little ones. Well here is a story to make your hair stand on end!

Evil Clown Dominic Deville hired for stalking, threats and a pie in the face

| Metro.co.uk

My first question is: What kind of sick individual would hire this social misfit to wash their car, let alone interact with their children?

On first reading, I thought that his man was operating in the UK and my immediate reaction, as one employed in the education sector, is that this is surely illegal? Has this guy been CRB checked? Then, to my relief, I read he operates in Switzerland. Well It's still not good for the children in Switzerland.

• He sends chilling texts.
• Makes prank phone calls
• Sets traps in letter boxes
• He posts notes warning children that they are being watched; that they are going to be ATTACKED.
• The 'clown's one and only aim is to SMASH a cake into the face of his victim, when they least expect it, during the course of SEVEN DAYS.

Hands up everyone who enjoys being stalked? Thought so! Not only is being stalked NOT FUNNY, it is VERY DANGEROUS - ESPECIALLY WHEN TARGETED AT CHILDREN.

Some may accuse me of lacking a sense of humour. A joke that is at someone else's expense is not funny - it is dehumanising.

If PARENTS allow their children to be frightened to this extent, not only will that child feel very unsafe, but if a real threat were to take place, would the child feel that they could tell their mum or dad about it?

Let's take each one of those points above and analyse it:

He sends chilling texts - kids are bullied through texts these days - it is not funny. Often the bullying goes on undetected, because the child is too frightened or ashamed to talk to them about it.

Prank Phone calls: I don't know what this amounts too - but if done in combination with the other things it could put the child on edge.

Notes saying the child is being watched and is going to be attacked.

SMASHING a cake in the face when this is least expected. That sounds violent - maybe more violent than it is.

TRAPS in Letterboxes. - Well again - it could be very frightening for a young child.

There is a way to give a child a fright and not cross the line. You can bend over slightly make your hands like claws and say in a funny voice "I'm coming to get you!" The child will know - since THEY know who YOU are and that you love them, that they will be tickled but will not be hurt when you catch them. You will also know exactly how long to persist and if the child shows any distress you stop immediately. Also, it is wise, no essential, only to engage in this kind of play with a child if there are other adults present.

This man's service should fall into the category of ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, and thus be only permitted to target people OVER THE AGE OF 16.

Well I have sounded off about this - now send in the real clown to make us laugh and TRULY entertain us.

Streaks

White streaks in a blue sky
Phenomena of the modern age:
Jet planes travel far and wide
Piercing the ozone with noxious fumes -
An outrage!

White lines on a blue canvas
Modernity in landscape
Inaudible cacophony reflecting
Invisible damage to the atmosphere -
Ecological rape!

Black steaks on a green ground
Stretching across a nation.
Cobbled streets replaced by motorways,
Flattening and destroying all that lies in their paths -
Devastation!

Black lines on a green canvas
Modernity in landscape
Ceaseless roar of engines reflecting
the unremitting destruction of the planet -
No escape?

© 2010 J. F.

UNQUALIFIED

A few day's ago I put up as a status on my Facebook Wall the following:

Think of all the ordinary people He has used to turn the world upside down. But also consider how utterly unqualified so many of them were.

Noah got DRUNK.

Abraham was too OLD.

Jacob was a LIAR.

Gideon was AFRAID.

Rahab was A PROSTITUTE.

Jeremiah and Timothy were considered TOO YOUNG.

David had an AFFAIR.

Moses was a MURDERER.

Elijah was SUICIDAL at one point.

Jonah RAN FROM GOD.

Peter DENIED CHRIST.

The Disciples FELL ASLEEP while PRAYING.

The Samaritan Woman WAS DIVORCED five times.

Timothy had AN ULCER.

John the Baptist ATE BUGS.

And Lazarus WAS DEAD!

So what's your excuse?

I should like to credit the author of this which was not me, but Pastor Greg Laurie of Harvest Ministries.

However, what follows are my thoughts as a result.

The list of biblical people used above is impressive – there is only one other example that springs to mind and this particular person tried to use this “weakness” as an excuse, a cop out from service with of the King, but whose application for exemption refused. DO you know who I am speaking about? If you said Moses, you are spot on. He is listed above but not for the thing I am about to mention. Let us look at the Word of God together:

“One day Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian. He led the flock far into the wilderness and came to Sinai, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the middle of a bush. Moses stared in amazement. Though the bush was engulfed in flames, it didn't burn up. “This is amazing,” Moses said to himself. “Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go and see.”

When the LORD saw Moses coming to take a closer look, God called to him from the middle of the bush, “Moses, Moses!”

gHere I am!” Moses replied.

“Do not come any closer, the LORD warned. “Take off your sandals, for you are stading on holy ground. I am the God of your father – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When Moses heard this, he covered his face because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6

What follows is God's call of Moses to “active service. In the discourse I read three times, “but Moses Protested” (Ex 3: 11, 13, 4:1) and then – in Exodus 4:10

g

But Moses pleaded with the Lord, 'O Lord, I'm not very good with words. I never have been, and I'm not now, even though you have spoken to me. I get tongue tied, and my words get tangled.'

Then the Lord asked Moses, 'Who makes a person's mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? Is it not I the Lord? Now go! I will be with you as you speak and I will instruct you in what to say.'

But Moses again pleaded, “Lord, please! Send anyone else.”

So, it would seem that in God's eyes – Disability does not mean Inability. Last night, on Dancing on Ice, Heather Mills was voted off after many weeks of successful participation in this challenging figure skating competition. It was all the more challenging for Heather, for as you may know, she has one prosthetic leg.

I quote from the website:

In 1993, Heather lost the lower part of her left leg after being hit by a motorbike while crossing a road.

One of the main reasons Heather is doing the show is to give children with the same disability as her the inspiration to do things they might not think they're capable of.

I could point to other examples of people who overcome amazing odds to achieve something that others might believe was not possible. Sir Douglas Bader was British WWII hero who despite having lost both his legs in an accident in 1931, continued in 1939 in the Royal Air Force and he was shot down and taken as a prisoner of war by the Germans. I remember as a child watching a film about him and being very inspired.

Now I am going to share about a person I have only just found out about – as a result of a search on the Internet for the phrase: Disability does not mean Inability. His name is Emmanuel Osofu Yeboah. This is a young man who overcame terrible odds as disabled person in Ghana and proved that Disability does not mean inability. Please look at the following trailer of a film called Emmanuel's Gift.

Coming from Africa myself, I am aware that by and large there is a huge misconception about people with disabilities. Rather like Emmanuel's father, who seeing that his son was disabled at birth – ran away, many people have no understanding of disability. Young people with learning disabilities tied to trees or kept hidden away. I have no doubt that there are other parts of the world that have similar backward ideas. However this is not a rant against bad treatment of people with disabilities, but it IS about people rising above the odds and achieving when everyone (sometimes including the people themselves) says they can't. More importantly, it is a very Christian message about how God, is no respecter of persons – God does not discriminate against the disabled – why should we? It is also, how God can and does use people that some may think are 'unusable'.

Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, your faith and your purity. (1 Tim 4:12)

Paul's encouragement to Timothy was to not let anyone look down on him. That's the key. Part of that means believing in ourselves. God accepts no excuses, so it is onward and upward my friends.

During my training as a teacher, in studying about Inclusive Education, we learnt the phrase “Children with barriers to learning” (BtL) – but as I came to discover through the course material and through experience, Barriers (not only to learning), can and are overcome.

It is interesting that in a hurdles race, that it is the finish line that is important and not the hurdles on the track. While an athlete should try and clear the hurdles it is not the clearing of the hurdles that wins the race but crossing over the finish line first. It may be that we may have to find another way achieving what we set out to do, or what God has called us to do, but achievable it most certainly is.

If we read on in the story of Moses, God had was by no means surprised by Moses supposed inability to speak, and he provided him Aaron, his brother as a spokesman. Moses, despite his 'inability to speak' lead the people of Israel out of the bondage slavery in Egypt to the promised land.

I called this blog UNQUALIFIED - We live in a Qualifications-obsessed world. Although only a small minority of people actually go to university and earn degrees, it seems that every job one does needs some qualification. It doesn't stop there - now, a basic degree does not suffice - one needs to have a Master's or a Doctorate. Teacher's used to be trained in teacher training colleges and get "an education diploma" - but that no longer cuts the mustard - now there is talk of needing a master's degree.

Sorry for the little rebellion here, but given the high rate of employment, especial Youth Unemployment, (Remember 1 Tim 4:12) it is hard for young people who put in the offort over 3 or 4 years to attain their degree - while building up a debt of a student loan, to also realise that they may actually have no job at the end of the day. Okay - that's my politics out of the way

Qualifications Driven World we live in often disdains the "uneducated" - while paying lip-service to the notion of equality. This Qualification Driven World is very quick to tell people "You Can't" - they may couch it in more flowery speech and may try and distract you from your goal and tell you that you don't need to do whatever it is you have set your heart on doing or you feel called to do. They may want to keep that person with learning difficulties in sheltered employment - being kept busy with nothing of importance when that person has a vital role to play in society in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

What hurdles face you in your quest to achieve that which you set out to achieve - they are there to be overcome and you can overcome them - it may be that you face barriers in life - things that get in the way. They may be, as I have talked about here, physical or learning disabilities, they may be economic circumstances you find yourself in, they may be any number of challenges, but all of them are able to be overcome. You may be like Heather Mills, or Emanuel Osofu Yeboah or Douglas Bader (all of whom were/are amputees - this was not deliberate - it is something I have just noticed) or have have other challenges - and it means you have do things a bit differently, but no less gracefully or beautifully. I think the biggest barrier we need to overcome is ourselves and our own defeatist mentalities. We need to believe in ourselves.

When I was 11 or 12 I remember, reading a bumper sticker on my headmistress' car - Disability is not Inability. I had certain challenges and BtL to overcome - with the help of dedicated teachers I did, and it is now my dream to see many more young people achieve theirs.

Friends,

please watch this video.

Now - as you can imagine - those who know me - this has got me quite worked up. How is that person even a principal if they are getting so carried away as to call the police. Also, if the principal in this situation has lost all sense of proportion why are not the police taking a stand and refusing to pursue this case - they must get thousands of complaints every day that are non-starters and they simply refuse to pursue them. They are a waste of valuable police time that could be better employed pursuing real menaces to society. Also - they are supposed to prevent child abuse - not perpetrate it.

I really implore all readers of my blog - please stand up and make a noise on behalf of Zakh Price.

The man in this video has been diagnosed with Asperger's and yet he is a psychologist.

People with Asperger's Syndrome are not or need not be intellectually disabled. With the right support, like Dr. Dubin, they can be valuable members of our society contributing to the economy and making a valuable input in the areas of their speciality.

One feature of Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome (AS) is the tendency to obsess or get intensely interested in one thing - at the total disregard of everything else. This can lead to misunderstanding amongst other people in society and the tendency to brand AS people as excentric, wierd, mad, etc. However, the ability to specialise should be seen as a strength as well.

As a Christian man, I would like to assure Zakh and Carole his grandmother, of my prayers. I pray that this fiasco is resolved quickly and that all the money that will be raised for legal expenses won't be needed but can instead be put towards Zakh's educational needs.

There is a facebook campaign that has been started for Zakh's situation.

Please read and respond.

The only thing that I disagree with the video I posted above is that I don't think Zakh's IQ should have been made public - it is not, in my opinion, a factor in the reaction that lead to these charges and that even if Zakh's IQ were were in the normal to high range his reaction would still be justified.

Please comment on this and Please circulate this to as many people as you possibly can.

It's been a long time since I last posted anything to my blog and since we are in a new year – I felt that it is as good an excuse as any to post another and make it a bit more current.

Firstly, to all my readers, Happy New Year! I hope you and yours will have a good one. I came home for Christmas – that is, I visited my family in Africa, and when I said say family, I mean ALL of them, and that is a lot. My neice got married and family and friends flocked from near and far to celebrate the marriage. The venue was simply awesome. I was able to join the festivities because my brother and his wife very kindly bought my air-tickets.

After the wedding we went back to my parents home and celebrated Christmas. Having been away from family for as long as I have, it is such a good feeling to be amongst them again. As I write, I sit on the deck of a beautiful beach home on the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal. Yesterday we went to see a sight that I had not expected – a place called Oribi Gorge (which is near Port Shepstone). It is a most beautiful place. It is hard to capture in words the breathtaking views that we saw. However, as beautiful as it is, it is also incredibly nerve-wrecking. I am not sure of the depth of the gorge, but it is easily in excess of 100 m. I have been told that it is in fact nearer 300 m. and there is a sheer drop to the bottom. Introduce three little children who have a tendency to wander away from their parents and others who tempt fate by walking right up to the edge and you can get the picture. I am not that courageous – a 'cautious George' – only approached the edge on all fours and I lay flat on my stomach to peer over the edge. I never knew this place existed until yesterday.

Spending time at the coast we have of course been down to the beach. A couple of days before I got to the beach, my brother and his family went down. They were on the beach and were exploring in rock-pools – all of a sudden my brother heard a scream from his youngest (2 ½ years) and the rock-pool in which he was paddling had turned blood red. He had cut is foot on a piece of broken glass in the rock-pool. There was a very long laceration extending from just below his little toe and it required 13 stitches. How sad that someone else's thoughtlessness had to spoil my nephew's and his family's holiday.

Not to finish off on a sour note – my holday draws to a close and I gear up to go home, I will be sad to say goodbye, but I am comforted by the thought that back in England, I have friends who are looking forward to seeing me again.and I know that we will be doing many fun things together.

John and Edward Grimes

Probably the most cotrovertial of all the finalists in the UK X-Factor. Simon Cowell took an instant dislike to this duo – twin brothers from Lucan, Dublin. However, there is something about them that get the public voting for them.

While I'm enjoying the X-Factor when I get to see it, and I have my favourites (not telling) I was shocked and dismayed at the revelation concerning the two lads from Ireland that was revealed in an 'exclusive' scoop of a british newspaper – in a headline that practically filled the front page – “Twins seX Factor secret” - what is this dark secret – you may be wondering – well – here it is – they are virgins. How unheard of. How shameful. (I hope you hear my very sarcastic tone as you read this. )

The paper reveals that John had a girlfriend for about 3 days when he was 15 but that's it, and they are 'definitely virgins'. I think it is noteworthy to point out that the journalist had not derived this information directly from twins themselves but from kids (their contemparies) from the neighbourhood where they grew up. This weasel that calls himself a journalist did not have the courage to interview the twins themselves, but instead went snooping around the neighbourhood.

There was another article in the same newspaper, written by a different journalist who interviewed the twins' parents/father. This was a far better article. It was interesting to read that they were bullied and given a hard time at school, because they are different/not conventional.

Now I ask you – what relevance has this got to do with their singing ability. Why do we need to know about the sex-lives (or lack of them) in people who choose to entertain by singing. The newspaper article was practically mocking them for wanting to concentrate on their careers in pop-music and their sport.

Bearing in mind that they are only 18, is it necessary for them to have had girlfriends?

This country is reeling under the burden of teenage girls becoming pregnant and being single mums. God forbid that we should have some teen pop stars who are also virgins and role models.

As for their singing – well they are not my favourites, but I have to admit that I find their performances amusing and enjoyable – they are certainly full of life, and seem to be having a lot of fun. Why does EVERYTHING have to be about sex?

----

Post script: Watched the boys sing this evening on X-Factor - They sang the Ghost Busters Song - I thought they were great.

Community Service for Preacher who hit boys

I was flabbergasted today when I read this in the newspaper. A Muslim cleric allegedly assaulted the three boys, aged nine, 12 and 13 because they were giggling during his lesson. He hit them quite hard causing two of them to experience temporary hearing loss.

He was given a 250 hour community service sentence, but was not as far as I can tell banned from working with children. It was interesting that the article did not name the magistrate who was presiding in this case.

I feel that this sentence was effectively the magistrate winking at the man as he handed down something that cannot be called a sentence. I cannot help thinking that had this been a Christian pastor or Sunday School teacher, the sentence would have been a lot sterner.

I want to stress that I am not anti-Muslim, and have no problem with Muslims schooling their children in their religion. I also have no problem with them requiring a certain amount of discipline of the children. However, corporal punishment is illegal throughout the European Union and Muslims like every other citizen or resident should respect this law, and if they fail to obey the law they must face the prescribed sanctions. A judge or a magistrate should not be a "respecter of persons" when it comes to sentencing.

As always, I invite comments from my readers.

Make a Joyful Noise or just irritating the neighbours

In the London Lite of Thursday 8 October I came across an article entitled "Churchgoers are ordered to stop singing loudly" . The article stated that Immanuel International Church in Walthamstow has been ordered by the council to quieten down after complaints had been lodged by a local neighbour.

Was the neighbour just being cranky, or was his complaint religiously motivated since he is a Muslim? Pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo lodged an appeal through the court but this was rejected with costs and it has been restricted to a twenty minute interval on a Sunday during which they can play their music.

The pastor claims that the complaints are religiously based, " so as not to offend the Muslims" but the council denies that there was any religious aspect to this. There was one sentence that grabbed my attention in this article and it was as follows:

The church also claimed the council had "taken away its ability to praise God", and that its congregation had dwindled from 100 to 30 because of the restrictions.

This is completely ludicrous and so over the top. Christians for generations have faced far greater opposition than is the case here, and have managed to keep going and keep worshipping God. Is it truly their view that the only one can praise God is to shout to the heavens? Is God hard of hearing that He has to be shouted at? Did not the Prophet Elijah mock the prophets of Baal for their shouting and screaming, and sarcastically suggest they may need to shout a little louder so as to rouse their God? If we look at that account in the Bible we can clearly compare the conduct of the many prophets of Baal with that of the Prophet Elijah. They made a loud raucous noise, whereas Elijah said a quiet prayer, that I think perhaps only Elijah and the Almighty could hear. And yet the effective prayer of the righteous man achieved the result, for despite the Prophet Elijah's sacrifice being drenched with water, it was the sacrifice that was totally burnt up with "fire from heaven."

While I do agree that it is wonderful to be able to join in loud, joyful praise singing, with a congregation who love the Lord, it is not the ONLY way to express my love for Jesus. It is true that some churches can have an hour or more of this loud music booming out of their buildings. It is not acceptable. In addition to this, the preaching, which is invariably done using amplification (whether there is call for using such amplification or not) can also be heard a great distance from the church. Surely, a Christian leader should take into account the context in which that worship takes place. Any sound technician worth his or her salt should be able set output levels suitable to the venue.

Excessive noise can damage the hearing of those at the event, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on those on which is imposed, who have to endure the noise because of their proximity to the venue. 

Lack of consideration for one's neighbours displays a lack of love. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbour and though he didn't mean it to be quite so literal, I'm sure that his advice to this sister in the Lord would be to quieten down.

Many people associate loudness with anger. When one speaks loudly, it is often referred to as shouting. Not only does this place great strain on the speaker's vocal chords, but gives the impression to a listener that he or she  angry. It is also an ineffective communication technique, as after a short period of time, the listener stops concentrating and may lose interest. Yes, the occasional shouted word may be effective in grabbing a person's attention, but sustained shouting over a long period of time, is hard to listen to just as if I were to type this whole blog in capitals, which, ironically is referred to as SHOUTING, WOULD MAKE IT HARD TO READ.

While anger when properly motivated is not sinful, the ongoing anger suggested by continual shouting, is indicative of wrath, a definite sin according to scripture. Yes, it may be that the pastor is not angry, but the loud volume of the preaching, if the report is to be believed would certainly beunsettling on the spirit. It is equally true to say that volume does not necessarily correlate with anger – but by and large the more angry one is, the louder one speaks.

I know of the Scriptures that say:

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye nations

Shout unto God with a voice of Triumph.

But the Word of God also speaks of times of quiet:

Be still and know that I am God.

"Go out and stand before me on the mountain," the Lord told him. And as Elijah stood there, the Lord passed, and a mighty windstorm hit the mountain. It was such a terrible blast that the rocks were torn loose, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire there was a sound of a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and stood at the entrance of the cave. (1 Kings 19:11-13)

 

I am not suggesting for a moment that we need to take a vow of silence, or that it is unscriptural to worship with loud music, but as with everything in life we need to avoid the extreme of only having that way of worshipping the Lord. 

I was saddened to read that the the congregation has dwindled from 100 to 30. That is a very radical loss, and if its only due to the noise abatement law, then that speaks volumes about the level of faith of those who were fellowshipping there or to their reasons for attending church. The thought that people feel that they cannot praise God unless they are doing it at the tops of their voices is sad indeed. Please don't blame the council. They are the local authority who have to enforce the law and if the law states for very good reasons that one may not disturb neighbours through excessive noise, it is up to the local authority to investigate, determine that it is excessive, take whatever initial steps

to remedy the matter, but if the nuisance persists, to take whatever legal action may be required. Nowhere in the bible does it state that Christians are not subject to the the laws of the land. We are told that except where such laws would cause us to contravene God's higher law, we ought to submit to the authorities.

We are coming up to the month of November, when, in America, Thanksgiving is celebrated. Thanksgiving has its roots in the Pilgrim fathers and their families emigrating from England to America, so that they could practice their religion as they believed God would have them do. These pious men did not deem it appropriate to engage or argue with the authority, which at that time was the king, but rather fought with their feet and went to a new country. What I am about to type may be perceived by some to be racist. It is not and I trust that you will see what I am trying to say here. The affected church, Immanuel International Church, is probably largely attended by Nigerian and West African people. Loud music, as was described in the article seems to be a feature of worship in such churches. Clearly in the home countries of these people, this style of worship is not uncommon and is regarded as normal. I can therefore well imagine that it came as something of a shock to them when the English authorities asked them to desist with the load music and preaching, and I can well imagine that their initial reaction may have been one of defiance – they can't tell us to be quiet. However, when living in a community that is not your own, you sometimes are limited as to the extent that you can practice your own cultural traditions. If the people of Immanuel International Church feel so strongly about their need to worship loudly for extended periods, perhaps they have to return to their own countries so that they are no longer subject to English laws. Alternatively, they may choose to remain, and realise that though the exuberance of their worship may be curtailed, the genuineness of it and the depth cannot and need not be

reduced.

The sacrifice of the Pilgrim Fathers – also known as the Puritans – was such that they had to give up on the land of their birth, and go to an undeveloped and unchartered land and start from scratch. It's a hard thing to be exiled from your country for whatever reason, and I speak as one who knows that feeling. I'm sure that there were those men who when faced with that choice, flee to practice the Puritan religion or remain and be a "Conformist" decided that they would sooner remain – and re-enter the established church. The persecution that the non-conformists endured because they did not believe as the established church insisted they should believe would have been terrible. Even to this day,

Christians in some countries have to worship in secret. I wonder if they ever sing hymns or songs, if they do, they do so with quietened voices, so as not to draw attention to themselves. John the Baptist said, when speaking about Jesus – He must increase, and I must decrease.

We are not to draw attention to ourselves as Christians, but our actions should draw attention to Jesus. There is freedom of religion in this country, but this does not mean that religious groups and institutions are exempt from every law. As far as I know churches are exempt from paying of taxes, however, some church leaders are using this exemtion to the extreme in order to avoid paying tax themselves. This selfish attitude is short-term gain for long tem pain. If it is found that too many church leaders use this exemption dishonestly, the long term effect will be that they all will have to pay taxes. In a similar way, failure to respect laws in regard to noise abatement, may result in churches being closed down by authorities or being refused permission to congregate in certain areas. The Bible says we must not give the devil a foothold, and I realise that this is referring to

compromise in terms of our personal lives. However, I think that situations like the one described in the article also give the devil a foothold as people will use such things as an excuse to denigrate the church in general, and thereby denigrate Christ.

A response to the note The falseness of today's "Sinner's Prayer" by Dan Lirette.

As I will be posting this on my blog as well as a note on my Facebook page, and not everyone has access to the original post, I shall first summarise what this note said:

The basic idea is that the concept of a “Sinner's Prayer” is not found in Scripture – nowhere, according to Danny, are people told to pray a prayer. He goes on to say the reason many people are falling away is because of this prayer. He says that instead of trusting the sinner's Saviour, Jesus, they trust the Sinner's prayer. He says that people have mouthed words that they do not understand. Evangelism is not a three-step prayer into the kingdom. Evangelism requires to primary ingredients, according to Luke 24:46-47 that repentance and remission of sin must be preached in Jesus name.
Danny concludes the article by saying that we have 'sold the gospel' for 3 pieces of silver, and produced a new kind of Judas.

Danny, I have summarised your response, and while no summary can ever be totally satisfactory, if you feel that I have somehow misrepresented what you were saying, please feel free to clarify below. Perhaps I missed out something you thought was important, then by all means draw our attention to that. Please also, note, ALL READERS, that Danny and I are not enemies, or even opponents. We are brother's in Christ, serving the kingdom, to the best of our abilities, and trying to remain faithful to what we believe Scripture is teaching, and, at times, having to change our minds about things we have firmly believed in the past, but we have come to realise, in light of Scripture, are not the case. I am not disagreeing for disagreement sake. There are elements of what he has to say that resonate with me and I will highlight those, but I do have a few questions that every believer, and potential believer, needs to think about, when it comes to this very import. I hope and pray that, through reading this, you the reader will have been able to more clearly understand the issue at hand and not that we (I) have simply muddied the waters.

SALVATION – That's what it is all about. This has to be the most Vital issue of all vital issues in the Bible - “How can a person be saved?” We will need, in the process of discussing this question, we will need to look at some Greek words, that are used in Scripture, and to truly understand what they mean. At this stage there are three words that I want us to look at:

• Salvation – Soteria – soterion – these terms are used 45 times in Scripture. It is derived fron the word Soter which means Saviour – and that is significant – I believe.
• Repentance – metanoia – to change one's mind.
• Gospel - euangelion – from where we get the English word Evangelist. Means good news – eu – good; angelion – message.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (Romans 13:11)

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:17)

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, (Phil 2:12)

But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. (1 Thes 5:8)

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. (2 Tim 2:10)

Oh I wish I had the space to treat this matter more fully, but these verses – give us different aspects that we need to think about when we talk about salvation. Salvation is nearer than we believed – is this not talking about the Day when Jesus comes back? It would seem so. In that sense is Salvation only available then, and not now. Everything I have ever be taught, and what I believe Scripture teaches is that we cannot, we dare not wait until that day, but that we need to be ready. Jesus parables about the five wise and five foolish virgins illustrates this point most clearly. But we are reminded that Salvation does have a future element. There will be the day when, excuse the clichés, all bets are off, the hour has come. All the cards will then be on the table – we will know who has won, and who has lost. The world is NOT ad infinitum – to infinity. Everyone, and I believe Danny would strongly agree, has to think about where they will spend eternity. It is not a question on which you can sit on the fence. One's indecision will not postpone the certain moment – you have to come to a decision.

We are instructed to put on the HELMET OF SALVATION. It is part of the armour Paul wrote to us about in Ephesians 6. Two interesting things – it is not the first thing we are told to put on, in fact it is second last., and it is a helmet which protects out heads. Salvation is NOT righteousness – Paul tells us to put on the breatplate of righteousness – a separate part of the armour. How do we interpret this. Is Salvation is part of the armour of God, one would assume we would need 'daily' or more frequently, to consciously put on Salvation. What does this mean in practice? Do we keep on being born again? If we miss a day (we are human, and we all miss it from time to time) does this mean that if we were to die that day – we would be turned away at the pearly gate. Sorry – you are not properly attired – get out of here. This could lead me down a whole other avenue, but the point, I think of this verse is not that salvation is inextricably linked to righteousness, but that we need both! I think there are other scriptures that support the idea that if you are going to follow Christ, you need to live righteously. Also, we should constantly put on that helmet – we should (I think we ALL fall short here) treat each day, as if it were our first as a Christian – keen but very hungry for more understanding. Excited and yet – still a lot of room for improvement. The Philippians 2:12 speaks about working out our salvation with fear and trembling. That is interesting – do we have to work it out for ourselves – didn't Jesus do it all? Where do we come into that? How do you work it out? These are questions – the answers to which are not easy!

I think I would agree with Dan to the extent that the “Sinner's Prayer” is an effort of rendering the thing down to 'simplest terms.' I am a primary school teacher and I teach fractions. Part of that teaching is to show children how to express a fraction in its simplest terms. A half, instead of five tenths, etc. However, in rendering down this complicated matter, to a simple, prayer have we either added to or taken away from what was originally there. I started this blog with a summary of what Danny wrote. I pointed out however that, as it was a summary, it is impossible to include everything and I had to make a decision as to what was the most important aspect and what could be left out while still containing the main thrust of the discussion. I think that the Sinner's prayer is an effort to distil to 'the essential elements' the basic truths of Salvation, so that the seeker can respond appropriatey. My point is, in rendering down, have we still got the basic essential. There is good precedent for this – if we look at the story in Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church and Peter preached his first sermon in he streets of Jerusalem and many were 'cut to the heart' and asked “How then may we be saved?” - Peter did not launch into a long dissertation but said: “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) Dan stressed this point in his own article that what is required for salvation is Repentance. But what is repentance?

Looking at the Greek word – metanoia – it means to change your mind. You think one way about something – you change your mind – you think differently about it. You think “I'm okay , I actually quite a good person.” and then you change your mind, and say to yourself. I am a sinner – I deserve the punishment for sin, and I need salvation. You might have been a smoker, and you come to a point in your life, that you decide, I'm not going to smoke anymore – it is bad for me, and it's not socially acceptable to those around me. Now – the thing is how does one know that that decision has taken place in the mind of another person. That person may have woken up in the morning, and had their 'early morning' cigarette. Then, for some reason, he/she decides to stop smoking. Maybe they tell their family – is that “true repentance” (from smoking.) What happens if, this person, all well intentioned decides to give up smoking, is suddenly faced with very stressful circumstances, and the first thing they do is light up a cigarette and take a drag. Has the person become an ex-ex-smoker? For some people, due length of time they have been smoking, giving up is a harder battle, and they need help and encouragement. Maybe they join a group. Maybe they use patches, or use some other devices.

I use the smoking as an analogy. How do we pinpoint that moment when the change of mind takes place. Also, the decision to 'stop sinning' is well intentioned – even genuine, but, this is with few exceptions, if any, we all struggle to live up to that resolution. So when we give up smoking when is it that we can regard ourselves as an ex-smoker? When we repent and decide to follow Jesus, when is it that we can say that that conversion took place. When we decided to do it, or is it when show fruit of repentance? I don't believe there is an easy answer to this question – I don't believe one can make a universal and definitive statement regarding this. I am not saying that repentance is not needed, I am just saying that one person can't say what that repentance should 'look like' in another individual.

I visited the London Museum a few weeks back and as I came out I came across a 'statue' of a page of a diary – it was a page of John Wesley's diary and it was recount of his heart being 'strangely warmed' – his conversion experience – apparently that spot where I was standing was the place (close enough) to where this actually took place. Does this mean that everyone has a strange warming in their heart? Of course not. It is interesting to note that John Wesley was already a preacher of the word when that took place. Just because a person is a preacher, does not necessarily mean they are a Christian.

Repentence has been likened to turning around and facing in the opposite direction. So coming my question, at what point, does one regard oneself having repented = when you decide to turn around when you have turned that 1 degree – or do you have to go at least 90 degrees, or should it be the full 180 degrees. I fear that if it is the last, very few of us can count ourselves as true Christian.

Evangelists are those who spread the good news of salvation. We are urged in scripture to do the work of evangelists (though there are those who have specific calling to this ministry). If we are work to do the work of evangelists – we need to tell people what it means to be saved or hw you can be saved. You need to know how to tell somebody how to be saved. Think about – you say Repent – they say how? The 'sinner's prayer formulation is one attampt, and I believe it is a valid one, to help people come into a relationship with Jesus Christ – it is a way of pointing to a moment in our lives when we move out of darkness into light. I would however, suggest that people don't put words in people's mouths – as in pray these words, as if only one formulation will do it. Rather, having talked with somebody about the need to be converted, and they want to do so, say to the person that it would be 'a good idea' if they prayed and then let them express their prayer in their own words. I don't even think it is necessary to pressure the person to do that there and then. Maybe they want to go home and think about it. Maybe that person really needs to talk to God about the death of a loved one to Cancer, or some other stumbling block, that a formulised prayer would completely miss. I think the key here is that every evangelist and person who would lead another to Christ, is to not actually do it in their own strength, but TRULY be lead by the Spirit – seeking His guidance as we speak to and LISTEN to the person who is at that very important place in their lives. We must not develop a 'box ticking mentality'. Every individual is different and they should be dealt with differently. No one knows that person, like the Holy Spirit, and so we should rely on Him for guidance as to what to say, or if t speak at all. One last point, most people are not converted by the words of a preacher speaking to a crowd, but most people are brought around by personal interaction with another believer – one on one. Yes, the mass conversion take place and are wonderful when they happen, but the Bible says there is MORE REJOICING in heaven over the one sinner that repents, than the 99 who do not need to repent. God get excited about each and every conversion. At the end of time, when we all stand before the Throne of God, worshipping Him, it will not matter whether we converted at a 'evangelical rally', or alone in our rooms at home. God is God, He draws His children to himself, and we as Christians should not be judging people according to their conversion experience.

I leave you with some questions: (Please leave comments with your answers – provided you keep it clean and respectful, I will approve the comment – even if I don't agree with it.)

Is Salvation a reversible process – in other words, if you have been truly converted, is it possible for you to be unconverted? This is not calling for a simple yes or no answer. If it is yes, in what way – what particular factors will result in your falling away? If no, what happens with backsliders?

Similarly, can a person have assurance of their savation, or is that in itself presumption?

If a person has a particular weakness, say they are alcoholic, and they come to Christ, but some reason start drinking again, have they had an unfortunate lapse, or have they, by retuning to the bottle, in effect turned their back on Christ? Realising that alcoholism and most addictions have a physiological component, do we regard a lapse as medical problem, or a spiritual problem or both?

Police no longer required to be able to swim?

Can you believe this headline? Neither could I but it's for real. I read in the papers about it. Here is an article by TimesOnline

I would be willing to bet that most of you would take it for granted that a member of the police force would be able to swim and would have the necessary life-saving skills to rescue a person from water, just to mention this scenario. The fact that swimming is not a basic requirement to enter a police force or police service is amazing enough, but the fact that they no longer train officers in life saving techniques or require them to learn to swim within a sensible time frame is plain infuriating.

Long time ago, as a little boy, I discovered that firemen (I grew up in a place and time when fire fighters were always men) did not ONLY put out fires, but performed other essential rescue tasks such as helping children who had climbed a tree but were "stuck" or using special cutting apparatus to free people from car wrecks. Well, it is understandable to think that fire fighters only fight fires, but I have always believed that police were there not only to make arrests and chase robbers, but to do many things to make society safe and peaceful.

I'm wondering, do police in your country have to be able to swim? Are you, or have you ever served as a police officer? If yes, were you required to be able to swim when you joined up, and if a trainee was unable to swim, were they required to learn? Beyond learning to swim, were you required to be able to perform certain minimums in regard to water?

I have no idea what the standards are for being able to save lives but I would suggest as a basic minimum, a police official should be required to be able to:
1. Swim upstream in a local river for up to 50 m. and to where the current is strongest, or out to sea for a similar distance
2. Be able to tread water while keeping another person a loft, for 10 minutes so that rescue services can have time to reach and rescue the person.
3. Be able to assess within a very short time (say 10 seconds), a situation, and
how to respond appropriately.

It has been suggested, and I have no idea how factual this assertion is, that the reason the standard of being able to swim has been dropped is that members of certain minority groups (in the UK) are by and large poor swimmers and would not meet the swimming ability targets. Now, while I entirely agree that the police force/service should reflect the diversity of the community it serves and not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, they should not also be required to remove entry requirements that are part and parcel of an officer being able to carry out his or her responsibility for the community.

QUESTION: Can people with physical impairments become policemen or policewomen? According to the Metropolitan Police website

The Disability Discrimination Act applies to all appointments in the Metropolitan Police Service and we welcome applications from individuals with disabilities. Adjustments will be made to selection processes and / or the working environment provided it is reasonable in all circumstances to do so.

So presumably a person who has some degree of physical impairment, but is intellectually equal to the task, could be recruited in a special capacity. For instance, I am hard of hearing in the one ear - I wear a hearing aid - would this preclude me from being an officer on the beat (I have no desire to actually join the police - this is merely hypothetical )

While I will concede that a few exceptions to this swimming requirement can be made, by and large, a person seeking employment with a police force should have certain competencies and should be physically fit and heathy. While I agree that they should NOT put height requirements as a person physical height has nothing to do with their competency as an individual, however, perhaps setting certain BMI (Body Mass Index

) parameters would be advisable, as someone overweight or underweight may not be able to cope with the rigours of the job. The force's insistence that these minimum standards be maintained is not and never should be regarded as dicriminatory. They are for the good of the individual themselves and the safety of the other officers or members of the public.

If you want to get a job, you work hard to achieve the academic and other requirements of that job. If you want to be a police officer but you cannot swim, you should go and find a person who teaches people to swim and ask them to teach you. The working world is not a kindergarten where you lower the standard so that "everyone can win" but it is a competitive market where you work to improve your standard so that you are more productive, more effective, and harder working so that you remain employed. Society should stop pandering to the lazy and ungrateful individual who does the minimum of work but wants the biggest salary. In nature, it is, according to even the casual observer survival of the fittest however it seems that today's society, with its political correctness and its selfishness has the maxim of survival of the weakest.

.
COMMENTS

ON PRAYER

My mum tells me that when I was little I was very much like 'Christopher Robin" in the way I prayed.

She overheard me one night, asking God to 'come back' because I had forgotten to mention

something during my prayers.

Read the poem I have included below and listen to the clip from Youtube.

I was listening earlier to BBC Radio Essex and the played a version of this.

It made me quite nostalgic. However this is is not entitled "on Prayer" for nothing.

I will make some comments and observations, a bit further down this blog.

VESPERS

Little Boy kneels at the foot of the bed,

Droops on the little hands little gold head.

Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

God bless Mummy. I know that's right.

Wasn't it fun in the bath to-night?

The cold's so cold and the hot's so hot.

Oh! God bless Daddy--I quite forgot.

If I open my fingers a little bit more,

I can see Nanny's dressing -gown on the door.

It's a beautiful blue, but it hasn't a hood.

Oh! God bless Nanny and make her good.

Mine has a hood, and I lie in bed,

And pull the hood right over my head,

And I shut my eyes, and curl up small,

And nobody knows that I'm there at all.

Oh! Thank-you, God for a lovely day.

And what was the other I had to say?

I said "Bless Daddy," so what can it be?

Oh! Now I remember it. God bless Me.

Little Boy kneels, at the foot of the bed,

Droops on the littel hands little gold head.

Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

What is prayer? Can we learn ANYTHING from this little poem? I believe there is something that we can learn. Children pray with such sincerity and belief. We as adults can learn to view as children do. Yes - his mind does wonder a bit - and I think that was the point of A.A. Milne's poem, but at the same time, we have a loving God, who knows that we have wondering minds as well. I believe he forgives that human weakness, and his happy that we want to spend time talking to Him.

We can talk to God about ANYTHING, and we can talk to him at ANY TIME. We don't need to wait for the end of the day, and certainly shouldn't wait until Sunday when we're 'in Church'. Little Children stayu close to their parents - they don't (or shouldn't wonder off without their parent's knowledge. - If We stay close to Jesus, that we can at any moment, turn to him and ask him for help or just praise him for being such a wonderful friend, then prayer will never be far from our lips.

I was blessed to be able to watch The Diary of Anne Frank, by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett on Friday Night. It was an excellent production put on by the Woodhouse Players. In one particularly scary moment, (There was a burglar in the building below their hiding place), Mrs Frank prayed by using, if my memory serves me right Psalm 46, and Psalm 121.

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way

and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

I lift up my eyes to the hills— where does my help come from?

My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.

One touching part of the play, was where they were celebrating Channukkah, and Anne went out of her way to find a gift of some sort for each of the people in their hiding place - even for the rather difficult Mr. Dussel, the elderly dentist whom the Frank family had taken in. Can you imagine being cooped up in a small loft for three years in fear fr your lives. Not allowed to make a sound or move during the day because you might be discovered by the workers in the building below.

I am not 100% sure about Ps 46 being in the play, but I know Psalm 121 was read but what word appears in both places? HELP - Our Help comes from the Lord. He is a very present help - He is there the moment we need him. He is watching over us - in fact in Psalm 121 - in verses 3 & 4 it says:

He will not let your foot slip—

he who watches over you will not slumber;

4indeed, he who watches over Israel

will neither slumber nor sleep.

We can be assured, just as little children can have confidence that their mum or dad is not far away, that our Father, is watching over us and loves us and makes sure we are safe. We can talk to him at any time. A little child, who wakes up in the night, knows that no matter the hour, they can go to their Mum or dad and they will wake up and attend the child. In the play, because of the awful situation the family found itself in, Anne experienced some terrifying nightmares - her mother and father ran to comfort her and calm her down and reassure her.

Well, just as it says in Psalm, the moon will not harm us by night. Actually, as we are comemorating the 40th anniversary of the 'moon landing' this is quite apt. We now know that the moon could not harm us at all, but sometimes we get very worked up over imaginary dangers and enemies. Little children often fear the 'bogey man' or 'monsters' or 'ghosts'. Adults may laugh at that - and sometimes exascerbate the problem by playing on those fears. (This is something I would not encourage.) However adults have their own imaginary fears - we work up in our minds whole disastrous scenarios, and yet we forget to trust our heavenly father.

Recently an Englishman went missing in the Australian outback, and was not found for about two weeks - people thought he was dead, but he was found alive. We haven't heard the full story yet, but I understand he fed himself from what he could forage. At one point he saw the search helicopter fly over and he waved madly, but they did not see him, and he almost gave up hope of ever being found. However he was found. I wonder if he prayed at all during that time?

You may be in a good place, having everything you need - being very content - no reason to ignore the Lord. Praise and rejoice and thank God for keeping you in that good place.

Put simply, the Word of God, says Pray without ceasing. That means don't give up. Give thanks in all things. And remember to be like a little child in your prayers and your relationship with God.

Fathers' Day: To the Unknown Dad

It's Father's Day today and I thought I would let you know

that although you do not know me, my name is Joe.

Our teacher asked us to make a Father's Day card

But some of us found that really, really hard.

Gary said that his dad is very very ill. He won't be able to be with him 'cause he's in a ward.

Nancy was looking very sad, she said she really missed her dad, but he's gone to Baghdad.

Will said his Dad had left him and that there was no point in writing cards and saying 'I love you.'

when he knows it isn't true.

Sally's mum and dad are getting a divorce and she will be living with her mum, of course.

Andy went all quiet as he looked at his page and drew –

I couldn't make out what he was drawing but it all was done in blue.

Ann told the teacher that her dad had gone away, but where he's gone she told us, her mummy would not say.

Well, I'm Joe, and I don't know, who this daddy is...You see, he was gone before I was born.

He couldn't stick around. I've tried to understand it, but I'm feeling very torn.

It's hard at school when children say, that their daddy did this or that. I want to say Don't boast,

but why should they not talk about that which means to them, the most.

Who are you, my daddy, what are you doing now?

Do you ever wonder about your little child?

What kind of person are you, what do you do for fun?

Have you got any other children, or am I the only one?

Daddy I want you to know that I have uncles (and aunties) who're kind.

Who take me out and play with me and listen to my stories. Hope you do not mind.

I'd like to mail this card to you, but don't know where to send it –

maybe I'll just post it on the Internet!

John Blog (Father's Day 2009)

These words came to me this morning when I was listening this morning to the radio, and heard them talking about Father's Day. I must apologise for the heaviness of this poem. It is not bright and breezy - and it doesn't have a happy ending. I want you to know that I am NOT anti-fatherhood, and I myself am VERY GRATEFUL FOR MY OWN FATHER. I would also like to acknowledge that just because a couple divorce, it does not necessarily mean that the children lose touch with their dads and now with the advent of joint custody, divorced fathers are not necessarily absent fathers. Also - it must be NOTED that not all absent dads are absent by choice.

I sent a version of this poem out to some people and one friend wrote back to me saying that it made him cry as he remembered that his dad had left him when he was about 8 years old. (I did not know that.) Anyway he made the point that our Father God had fathered him through the years, and it is true that as Christians we refer to God, Our Father - and Jesus taught us to pray to "Our Father."

You will notice that this poem does not have a determinable pattern. This is partly because of the way the poem evolved, but also because it reflects something of Joe's life - disrupted and disorganised.

As usual, I invite comments - and will gladly add anything that is not spam or insulting.

A Parable of "XII Angry Men"

Many years ago, I was visiting South Africa for the first time, and for the first time met an uncle. As a young lad (about 13 or 14 at the time), Uncle Ian made an impression on me. He was a born again Christian, as I was, and this was notable because I didn't know many born-again adult male Christians in my family. Uncle Ian said to me words to this effect: “God speaks to us in many different ways.” Not an earth-shattering announcement, I know, but actually it is greater than we realise.

Growing up into Christ, I became part of a conservative Christian tradition called Protestantism. The watchword in Protestantism is “Sola Scriptura” - Only the Scriptures. Now let me state before I go any further that I do believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and nothing else trumps it or supersedes it in this regard. However, having acknowledged this fact, the Bible is not the ONLY WAY God communicates with us. If God is God – in other words, if He truly exists, then He is free and able to communicate with us through many different means. Not only that, but God has to speak to us through different means, because of our uniqueness – God uses different 'media' to get through to us.

I think God has shown me something through the play I went to watch. It is called “XII angry men” and it was written by Sergal Sherman. For those not familiar with this play, as I was not, I shall include here the synopsis provided in the programme.

The defence and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open and shut case of murder soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused and each other.

“12 angry men focuses” on the jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-person jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open and shut: the defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 casts a not guilty vote. At first Juror No. 8 bases her vote (the play I saw featured both men and women, and Juror was a lady) more so for the sake of discussion, after all the jurors must believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Juror 8's attempts in convincing the other jurors that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate.

So, as the synopsis says, it seemed like an open and shut case until they began to look at the evidence that was presented, I mean, really look at it. Eleven of the twelve had made made up their minds before their bums left their seats in the courtroom that the accused was 'guilty as charged'. To eleven of the jurors, this business of going into the jury room was a mere formality. It was plain as the noses on their faces that the boy was guilty, but Juror No. 8. wasn't about to just let it go like that. One of the jurors said to Juror No. 8, “What we need to do is convince you that we are right and you're wrong.” Gradually, as the deliberations went on, Jurors who were once convinced that the boy was definitely guilty begin to see that it is not so open and shut as they had originally thought, and start to change their vote. Then it is ten guilty – 2 not guilt, 8 – 4, 6 – 6.

Some of the jurors want to give up at this point and simply declare a hung jury – let there be another trial – make it someone else's problem. Some jurors think they've been in that room too long already. Of course, to begin with, all the abuse is hurled at Juror No. 8. There's the name calling, the accusations of a political agenda, then there is the accusation that she was behaving like a kid. It's hard thing to stand your ground, when everyone else seems to be singing from the same (but different to yours) hymn sheet. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor!!!!). Then the vote goes to 10 not guilty – 2 obstinate guilty votes. During the deliberations – it becomes clear that for some of the Jurors, the accused was not the only person in the dock. For one juror, the whole Latino community seemed to be on trial, for another, it was a son who defied his father and while he did not physically kill the father, his behaviour was such that it emotionally did.

Well, that was the story, it is fiction, a good yarn, but is it a parable? Am I not going a bit OTT here? Let me try and do a Juror No. 8 on you. When many of us come to the Bible, we have made up our minds about what it says before we even open the book or find the verses. We, especially coming from a Christian background, have heard it all before. It is, in that sense, 'an open and shut case' – open the Bible read the words, and shut the Bible. There are some who can quote lengthy portions verbatim and remember amazing details, that pass under the radar as far as rest of us are concerned. However, what came to me, as a result of seeing this play, was the understanding that when people read and understand things from the Bible, or whatever sacred text one may use, you usually read into it that which you expect to get out. It is a bit like when you proofread something that you've written, you tend to overlook some errors because you are reading what you think you wrote.

At the beginning of the play, eleven jurors were convinced and no doubt sincerely believed that it was proven, that the accused was guilty. As the story unfurled, they become less and less convinced. We may be sincerely reading the Bible but what we need to understand, is that we will read it with our own theological background guiding our reading. This is why an Anglican and a Baptist can read the same texts regarding baptism in the Bible and yet arrive at very different opinions. This is why a Presbyterian and a Pentecostal will read the same texts about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and come to diametrically opposed conclusions in regard to the matter of speaking in tongues. In both cases, the people who take up the particular stance are amazed that the other group can come up with such a 'wrong' answer. We may even go so far as to say that they are heretics, not-Christian, there to sow discord. We may, if we have that kind of authority – put the person under 'Church discipline' – or even excommunicate them.

I think it is important to ask the question, as if I were a Juror Number 8: When you read the Bible, do you take it all literally, or figuratively? Is the creation account, for instance, in Genesis 1-2, a literal account of how it happened or an analogy to explain a spiritual reality? I know most of you have answered this question in your head. What I don't know is how you answered it. I will leave my answer out for the time being. The point is, that on both sides of the discussion, you will be completely confident that you are right about this – even if you cannot explain why – you just know. For some of you – 'reason' is worldly and should be cast out if it is in 'contradiction' to what the Bible says. To others – this is such a fanciful story – the world coming into existence complete with all vegetation, and animal species and humanity in the space of six days that the WHOLE BOOK is a waste of time.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here but the Bible consists of 66 books – of varying length and from various earthly authors. And there are very many verses to read. Also, what we have in our hands today as “The Holy Bible” is not the original text – written by the hand of the author – there is not a single example of any of those original texts in any collection or museum anywhere. What we have are versions of the Bible. Versions in our own languages – thanks to wonderful people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale, but even within the English language Translation there are very many versions of the Bible. While rendering in most cases is pretty similar with inconsequential differences – sometimes the difference is very significant. Surely they were using the same texts to translate from the original language? Well, apparently not always.

Originally, before there were printing presses, manuscripts were copied by hand by dedicated people who wanted to reproduce the document, the Word of God, so more and more Christians who were spread all over the then known world, and so the original was 'copied' a few times – but because different people did the copying, small differences would appear in the copies that were not in the original, and were not in the any of the others, well copies were made of the original, and then copies of the copies and so on. Even the compilation of the Bible has disputed as to what books and documents are part of it, and what are not. Catholics recognise what is called the 'Apocrypha' while protestants don't – rather like in a case where one juror will accept a witnesses testimony as accurate while another will doubt it.

Some of the original manuscripts omit whole sections that other manuscripts include. For example Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:73 – 8:11. If you look those texts up, you will find that it says that 'some early manuscripts' do not contain these verses. As you can imagine a great deal of discussion and debate – heated debate – has arisen as to whether or not these texts are originally from the author, or some forgery – later inserted. Again, depending on your theological background, you will either decide that of course it should be there – why would exist if it didn't, or, obvious it should not be there – can't you see that it obviously doesn't 'fit with the rest of the Bible? Again, I'm just doing a Juror No. 8 and drawing your attention to some things that might have escaped your notice.

So, I'm sure by now some of you are wondering, - am I doubting the veracity of the Word of God? No. A categorical no – but I am doubting my own ability to really understand it – and things that were plainly obvious before – are not as obvious any more. I am realising that previously I looked at certain parts of the Bible – in regard to certain matters and I allowed myself to think that that was ALL the Bible had to stay in that regard, but now, I am starting to realise that the WHOLE Bible might be saying something different to what I originally thought.

Does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself? No – but sometimes we read into what is said, a lot that is not being said, and then, we may find ourselves in a quandary.

Jesus shook people's cages on regular occasions:

1. He did not hesitate to rebuke the religious elite and their pomposity and hypocrisy.
2. He would fellowship with “drunkards and sinners”
3. He would heal a man on the Sabbath.
4. He spoke to the Samaritan women, and did not show the same disdain for Samaritans as did the Jewish men of his time.
5. He healed lepers by laying hands on them. Lepers were regarded as unclean and had to live 'outside the camp'.
6. He washed the disciples' feet. Peter said: no, you won't wash my feet. Jesus said, if I don't wash your feet, then you have no part of me.” Peter's ingrained ideas about Master-Servant Rabbi-Disciple relationships gets thoroughly challenged.

Peter firmly believed that it was anathema for him to step into the home of a Gentile, but God sent him a vision, and very 'controversial' vision at that, where God commanded him to eat all sorts of non-Kosher food. Oh no! Peter Protested: Lord forbid that I should do such a thing. God answered him, “Don't call anything impure that God has made clean” And so Peter responded by following God's commands and actually going to the house of Cornelius, the Roman Soldier and he and his household were saved.

Paul was livid with the Christians – he really had it in for them. He was ready to kill the lot of them, but Jesus met him on the road to Damascus – his ingrained ideas set aside in one fell swoop.

Martin Luther – he was a monk – a learned man – on his way up through the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and then he gets it - “ The just shall live by faith” - He suddenly understands that indulgences and and a whole lot of Catholic traditions of that time were of no effect – that it was one's faith in Jesus Christ that saved you, nothing else – no bells or whistles – no incense or masses – only faith in Christ would save you. And he took his stand – at the Diet at Worms where he famously said “Here I stand, I can do no other.” And boy did they call him names.

Slavery was defended as being completely acceptable by ministers preaching from their pulpits, but gradually, more and more people began to understand that actually, Slavery is wrong. It took a few people to start to look at things differently move beyond the proof texts that they usually quoted by heart, and see that perhaps God was not saying what they had thought He was saying all along. If you haven't seen it, get out the DVD “Amazing Grace”.

Under the Third Reich – in Germany, most of the preachers supported the political moves of Adolph Hitler, but Dietrich Bonhoeffer took a stand and saw the wrong of what Hitler was doing. He said that the church must not simply "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself." (The idea of opposing a government was considered revolutionary at the time, and still is in many cases. When governments perceive that the Church, or individual people in line with their religious beliefs oppose what the government is doing, they can be very hostile and very nasty.) Read Dietrich's story on the Internet. It's very interesting. You can read of his shift from “phraseology to reality”. And other such things. For his pains, he was executed by the Germans just weeks before their defeat in the Second World War.

Apartheid was, according to the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, firmly based on biblical teaching. Every Afrikaner knew that they were superior to the black man. It was obvious to them that God wanted people not to integrate, but to develop separately, and so it would seem that the whole Constitution was built around this one premise in this “Christian Nation”. But there were Jurors No. 8 by the dozen, whose voices gradually got heard, saying, “Is that really so – is that what God is saying?”

So, here is the conclusion of the matter, just like in XII Angry Men – it took one person to say something different – to stand against the tide of traditional thinking – resist the pressure, and to ask the questions that no-one else was asking. When we come to the Word of God, we can often read into it what we want to read, and overlook the less palatable truths, regarding them as “irrelevant.” We may treat it as an “open and shut case” - not bothering to explore its meaning because the 'truth is plain to see' or we can linger a bit and ask the difficult questions, and see what comes out of it. You may take longer and ask all the questions and still come up with the same answers, but at least you have opened your mind to the possibility that there are other answers. In fact, if you have come back to the same answers, after asking those awkward questions, you should find that you are firmer in your faith than you were before.